Agenda Item #3 – Study Session on Universities’ ARU Proposal

Amy handed out an Executive Summary of the Quality Team response to the ARU request.  Amy then summarized each piece of the proposal.  The proposal is broken down into 3 parts: processing of course acceptability, processing of course applicability, and estimated costs.  Course acceptability is what you would look at in the CEG – source course acceptability at the target institution.  ACETS can support course acceptability for ARU with some limitations/assumptions – that the universities use the same business model that exists and the display and functionality of the CEG is the same.  The universities can also use the CAS CEG to publish ARU equivalencies with some limitations – the display features remain the same and the receiving institution encodes ARU courses in DARS so that they can be displayed in CAS.  If the display features are not the same, CAS would not be best choice and the Quality Team could possibly work with ARU technical support to create ARU only tables. The unsupported functions are institutional tables and changes in the display of data.

A conversation followed about where the universities were in the implementation of ARU.  Tom Trotter explained the specifics for the group. Amy stated that the start date for the use of ACETS and CAS for ARU is Spring 2002.  Zoila noted that in order to use CEG in Spring 2002, universities must begin processing equivalencies in ACETS this month.  Ron asked Amy questions about the applicability tables.  Amy stated that the Quality Team is much more reserved about the applicability tables as they are much more complex and the user must be an expert in DARS.  Bruce asked how the institutions would produce applicability tables if not through CAS.  Amy stated that the universities could use the degree audit systems that they already have in place. Since NAU is the only institution that is not a DARS licensee, they would have to obtain a license or use People Soft once implemented.  Amy let Ron know that it is possible to interface CAS with People Soft.  Linda noted that CAS Miami has the interface built but they do not have a school to pilot.  Ron stated that he would look into NAU volunteering to pilot CAS and People Soft.

APASC asked the Quality Team to revise the budget based on input at the meeting.  The Quality Team agreed and stated that they would revise and have the document out to APASC as soon as possible.  Ron asked that the progress on the ARU/ATASS partnership be a standing item on the APASC agenda.  Gretchen agreed.

Agenda Item #4 – BAS Transfer Language

Te revised language from the BAS subcommittee was included with the APASC materials.  Judith handed out a revised version that included input from the community college academic administrators and occupational deans.  A question was raised about junior level status for students transferring from AAS to BAS.  The community college administrators added that language as a protection for students.  Ron Pitt and David Schwalm explained that the “completion of a maximum of 60 credit hours for graduation” statement was protection for the students.  The junior level status statement is not necessary and not true in all cases.  Bruce also felt that the statement about the maximum number of credit hours for completion of the Bachelors degree satisfied the concern raised by the academic administrators.  Judith raised another concern that the community college academic administrators raised to her – the AGEC and the AAS degree.  Ron asked if there is an Arizona standard for the number of occupational credits that needs to be included in the AAS degree.  Bruce responded that 18 general education credits are required and a minimum of 60 credit are required for the degree but those are the only standards.  Ron moved to accept the AAS/BAS transfer language with the inclusion of changes discussed.  Randy seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously. Gretchen will make changes in the language and provide the final copy to the JCC at their meeting.

Agenda Item #5 – Report on CAS

Amy reported that the implementation of the ACETS system had come to the point whereby on November 1^st, paper processing for course equivalencies will no longer by accepted by the universities.  The second tier routing groups for the ACETS system are now also up and running.  This is one of the next level expansions of the ACETS system.  The next step is to extend ACETS for use by the ATFs – this discussion will begin in November.  Amy reported that the Administrative CEG Pro is now the only CEG for use by the institutions and the response has been very positive.

Agenda Item #6 – Report from the General Education Articulation Task Force (GEATF)

Don Richardson gave an overview of the GEATF proposal that related to the Science requirement for the AGEC-S.  After a discussion, APASC decided that those ATFs identifying the AGEC-S as the most appropriate preparation for the major could recommend the best Science option for students in the AGEC.  Gretchen will work with ATAC to communicate the decision to the individual ATFs.

Agenda Item #7 – Report from the Arizona Transfer Articulation Committee (ATAC)

Marcia noted that there were two areas of interest in the ATAC report.  The first is the transition to using ACETS exclusively for course equivalency processing after November 1^st.  Marcia also noted that Dine is not a part of the transition yet but with the small number of equivalencies processed, this should not be a concern.  The second area was the request from APASC to ATAC to develop a system for processing and listing ALS course equivalencies.  The response to the APASC request was included in the materials.  Bill noted that the originating institution needs to put forth the equivalencies and then the universities need to be notified which institutions will offer the course via ALS.  Marcia commented that ATAC wanted to use CAS for the listings and did not want to address the option of creating a separate site to list ALS course equivalencies. Course numbering will follow the community college registrars numbering proposal for ALS.  The ATAC proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 – Report from the Academic Advising Articulation Task Force (AAATF) and Transfer Student Ombudsperson (TSO)

Martha reported that the Advising ATF at their October meeting looked at the original charge given to the AAATF and the progress made toward the original goals.  Martha went through each original goal and gave an overview of the AAATF progress.  Martha noted that the AAATF did a brainstorming session at the September meeting to identify next steps and new directions for the group.  Bill Fee asked if the AAATF could give feedback to the discipline-specific ATFs on the success of the pathways.  Stephanie stated that the success of the pathways was one of the discussion items raised by the advisors. She would report back on further discussions.

Stephanie gave the Transfer Student Ombudsperson report.  She noted that the TSOs had accepted the Arizona statewide TSO guidelines that were included with the TSO report.  Maricopa developed guidelines for the TSOs within the district and allowed the statewide group to modify that document for their needs.  Stephanie reported that some of the future goals for the TSOs are to work with Amy to develop an ACETS-like system for TSO requests as well as to improve communication between institutions.  Stephanie asked the group about marking “in progress” Associate degrees on transcripts.  Gretchen stated that she had copies of all community college transcripts and she would forward them to Stephanie for the next meeting.

Don Richardson complimented the Advisors and TSOs on their progress. 

APASC accepted the AAATF and TSO reports unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 – ATF Issues for Discussion

Gretchen gave a short overview of the ATF Chair Training on September 14^th.  Gretchen asked APASC if the training should be done this Spring semester for next year’s chairs.  APASC agreed.  Anna asked Gretchen to include this year’s chairs at the meeting and to schedule time for a small group discussion so that the chairs could provide some informal feedback.  Gretchen said she would work on scheduling the training session for April.

Gretchen reported on the Education ATF meeting – the ATF adopted a Special Education pathway and aligned the core courses in the Special Ed pathway to the core courses in the Elementary Ed pathway.  She reported that ASU made the shift in their prerequisite for Theories of Elementary Mathematics to either College Math or College Algebra.  The ATF was pleased. Anna asked if there could be a discussion about Applied Education degrees at the next Education ATF meeting and if Sherry St. Arnold, the new Maricopa Teacher Preparation director could speak at the meeting.  Gretchen said she would forward the request to the chair.  Judith asked about Early Childhood bachelor’s degrees at the universities.  A short discussion about Early Childhood Education followed.  APASC asked that it be an item on February’s agenda.

Gretchen reported on the progress made at the Nursing ATF.  She reported that the ATF determined that a Nursing pathway is not a positive choice for the student.  As an alternative, the Nursing ATF is exploring a Pre-Nursing certificate for community college students that will include all the lower division requirements that a student should take prior to transferring to a BSN program.  It would allow community colleges to count completers and give the student something to indicate that the requirements that he/she needed prior to transfer were completed. Judith noted that the topic that needs further discussion at the Nursing ATF is solid articulation from ADN programs to BSN programs.  Marcia asked Kate to bring Mary Briden’s ADN to BSN transfer proposal to the February Nursing ATF meeting. Kate agreed.

Gretchen asked if the Engineering request to post their articulation agreement for the Freshman Engineering course could be listed on the ATASS website.  She also inquired if she and Amy have the discretion to post requested items such as this one on the ATASS site.  A discussion followed about the items that should appear on the ATASS website.  APASC agreed to post the Engineering agreement and gave Amy and Gretchen discretion to post these items when asked.  Bruce asked that if increased requests result, APASC be notified.

Gretchen stated that the Languages ATF is working to align the new computerized CLEP test scores.  She would work with the Languages chair to develop a proposal to forward to the registrars on the ATF’s decision.  Gretchen would report on the progress at the February meeting.

Gretchen communicated a request to APASC from ATAC asking that draft common course matrices be approved by APASC more often than the current once a year format.  APASC decided that common courses could come to APASC for approval at any meeting. Gretchen stated that she would place them on the agenda as needed and communicate the decision to ATAC.

Gretchen stated that she has been receiving multiple requests to have ATF meetings via the ALS or NAU IITV systems.  She has been saying no to the requests, as there is no precedent.  She wanted official direction from APASC on how to respond.  APASC decided that each ATF should have a face-to-face meeting in the Fall semester and if the ATF wanted a second meeting in the Spring to be scheduled via distance delivery, that would be acceptable.  Gretchen stated that she would communicate the decision to ATAC and respond to requests accordingly.

Agenda Item #10 – ATF Attendance Report for 2000-2001 Academic Year

Amy noted that in the report it stated that Pima missed 4 ATF meetings and that the number should be 2 as well as the number for Maricopa should be 2 as well.  Gretchen asked if this report could be presented to APASC at the June meeting.  APASC agreed and accepted the report with no further discussion. 

Agenda Item #11 – APASC Goals

Gretchen reported that Glenn was convening the APASC Goals subcommittee.  The subcommittee members are Glenn Irvin, Don Richardson, Marcia Wojsko, Amy Fountain and Dave Padgett.  Judith asked if she could join the subcommittee.  Gretchen reported that she would inform Glenn and send along all related materials to Judith.  The Goals subcommittee will report to APASC at the February meeting.

Agenda Item #12 – ATASS Budget

Kate and Judith, as the Board representatives to the Quality Team, asked that a standing APASC budget committee be created to address collection of match, overview and management of ATASS budget, and the creation of the next biennial budget for submission to the JLBC.  The suggested membership of the budget committee is: the ABOR representative to APASC, the SBDCCA representative to APASC, Linda Burns, Doug Vinzant, a community college APASC representative and a university APASC representative.  Ron volunteered to be the university representative.  Anna Solley asked that Kate represent Maricopa as the budget subcommittee representative for the community colleges.  APASC agreed on the membership.

Agenda Item #13 – ATASS Media Plan (Report to the JCC)

Gretchen asked APASC to review the ATASS media plan, as it was an agenda item on the October 18^th JCC agenda.  Gretchen stated that she would provide ATASS information to the government affairs and public relations people on each campus as well as those representatives for the Board staffs.

Agenda Item #14 – Joint Legislative Budget Committee Report from the Joint Conference Committee

Judith and Kate gave an overview of the JLBC report from the JCC.  Kate highlighted major accomplishments of the last year – notably that there have been approximately 2,000 AGEC completers since the inception of the AGEC.  Judith reported that the JLBC report is an agenda item on the October 18^th JCC agenda.  She and Gretchen would work to make any changes to the report based on APASC and JCC feedback.  AT that time, there was no APASC response to the report.  APASC accepted the report unanimously.

Agenda Item #15 – Quality Team Report

Gretchen gave an overview of the Quality Team’s recent activities as well as an overview of the Articulation facilitator work plans.  There were no additional comments or questions. APASC unanimously accepted the Quality Team report and the Articulation Facilitator work plans.

Agenda Item #16 – Other Items / Announcements

There were no additional items for discussion.

Agenda Item #17 – Dates for 2001 – 2002 APASC Meetings

·        Tuesday, February 26, 2002 – Maricopa Community College District

·        Tuesday, April 23, 2002 – ASU West

·        Tuesday, June 25, 2002 – NAU

  The meeting was adjourned at 3:23 pm.